Here is my response to another piece of `fan mail', this time from an
evolutionist. I am bcc'ing this to my `fan'.

--Original Message Text---

From: J.... S.....

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 11:38:50 +1000

[...]

JS>While browsing your Quotes page I was disappointed to discover that you have included the infamous Darwin quote concerning the evolution of the eye. I say infamous because you, like other creationists, have omitted the part of the quote that puts Darwin s comment into proper perspective. I m sure you know what it says, but if not I ll give you the complete paragraph with the missing words in italics:

I cannot answer for other creationists, but all *I* say in *my* quote of Darwin is the *truth* that, "Darwin admitted it seemed `absurd in the highest degree' that the eye could have been formed by natural selection":

Darwin admitted it seemed "absurd in the highest degree" that the eye could have been formed by natural selection "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical
and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.167). [....]

JS>"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

Thanks. But the above makes *no* difference to the point that I was making,
namely that "Darwin admitted it seemed `absurd in the highest degree' that the eye could have been formed by natural selection".

In fact in the extended quote above Darwin says that "the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection" was "insuperable by our imagination"!

JS>I must say that the most surprising thing about creationists is their ability to lie and mislead in a vain attempt to get their point across.

And a surprising thing about some evolutionists is their ability to convert a statement of the sober truth, i.e. that "Darwin admitted it seemed `absurd in the highest degree' that the eye could have been formed by natural selection" into a "lie"!

JS>And as you are a committed Christian I find it extraordinary that you are prepared to deliberately omit a part of a quote to further your own (and creationism's) ends, an act that you should surely consider a sin.

See above. The part of the quote I omitted had no bearing on the point I was making, that "Darwin admitted it seemed `absurd in the highest degree' that the eye could have been formed by natural selection".

JS>I note you are studying biology. How on Earth will you successfully pursue such a study if you don t accept biological evolution?

Nowhere is this more evident in my Molecular Biology units. My atheist lecturer (who BTW, like all my lecturers I have the highest respect for as gifted scientists, teachers and decent human beings), recently put up a diagram of the ATP synthase rotary pump. She then stared at it and turned to the class and said: "The bloody thing ROTATES!"

But you need a personal philosophy that can accept it, i.e. does not rule out the supernatural apriori. If you do, then "evolution" is true by definition, even if it is false.

JS>As Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

But I *do* accept there has been "a change in the genetic composition of populations" which is Dobzhansky's definition of "evolution" (see tagline)!

So, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of" "change in the genetic composition of populations". Wow! :-)

JS>It s unlikely I ll investigate your site
further as I m sure it's contents will be, in the main, as disingenuous as
your selective use of quotes.

Nothing like an open-minded evolutionist!

BTW, maybe you can give me an example of a *non*-"selective use of quotes"! On second thought, don't bother (see below).

JS>Sincerely

No doubt you are.

[...]

JS>"Reasoning with a creationist is like trying to teach a pig to sing;
it's a waste of time and annoys the pig."
--(With apologies to U. Utah Phillips on "Loafer's Glory").

Like I said, an open-minded evolutionist!

Normally I am happy to receive feedback on any actual errors (e.g. typos, etc) in my quotes. But since I have *hundreds* of quotes, based on the evident prejudice in your post above, I expect I could start receiving *hundreds* of baseless allegations from you like the above. And since you, by your own admission, regard "Reasoning with a creationist ... a waste of time", I am inserting a filter in my emailer to delete any further posts from you unread. Goodbye.